Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing exactly what is destroyed (old_product_id removed from the stack) and that the removal and addition are described as a single operation. It does not cover failure behavior, e.g. what happens if old_product_id is not currently in the stack.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences, trigger first, mechanics second. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter mutation with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies purpose, trigger, effect, and identifier format. The only real omission is edge-case behavior on an invalid or absent old_product_id.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already labels both fields, so baseline is 3. The description earns an extra point by specifying the accepted identifier format ('SuppCo product UUIDs or slugs'), a detail the schema's generic 'SuppCo Product ID' wording does not provide.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource: 'replace a product in their stack with a different one', and spells out the mechanics (removes old_product_id, adds new_product_id). It implicitly separates itself from suppco_add_to_stack and suppco_remove_from_stack by being the atomic swap, but never names those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a clear when-to-use trigger ('when the user wants to replace a product in their stack') and even a scenario ('after comparing alternatives') that points toward the compare tools. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it, e.g. that add_to_stack plus remove_from_stack would be the alternative for non-swap edits.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.